I want to be Dr. P at The Blog That Ate Manhattan when I grow up. If you like my blog, you should love hers. She has been especially on fire, both with her cooking posts and her women’s health posts. Her blog has been in my sidebar forever. But, I can’t resist linking to her now and then, even when huge women’s health and politics related stories pile one on top of each other and don’t budge me to post.

8 responses to “Reply turned post, not ranting about pap frequency”

USPSTF recs are for screening, not managing abnormal paps. HPV is not used for screening in the under 30 crowd, but still has a role in triaging abnormal pap smears in women over age 21. (Not in the under age 21 crowd)

Table 1 in the linked Oncology article is pretty clear on the role of HPV testing in management of abnl paps if you want a good reference. Also check out the ASCCP pap guidelines, which they referenced in the Oncology table.

ACOG has not come out with new recs, unless I missed something very recent.

There is no role for screening HPV testing in the under 30 crowd. They all have HPV and almost always will clear it. It would lead to much over diagnosis and over screening if HPV were added to routine screening.

As to how the annual exam will evolve over time, it will be interesting to see. I don’t know that there is anything magic about a 12 month interval. I do know I do a lot more than pap smears in my annual visits. But we will see.

Ok, I am wondering about this bit about the under-30 crowd “all has HPV and they will almost always clear it.” I have always been HPV negative, even when under 30.. why is it assumed that everyone under 30 has HPV?

I don’t think it’s assumed all women under 30 do, but it is extraordinarily common. And, transient, which is the point. Testing negative does not mean you were always negative, although it is entirely believable and possible that you have been. This article:http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=205774 lists a prevalence rate of 50% for women in their 20s, and I have heard of higher.

While many are still doing them out of habit, routine bimanuals aren’t recommended for asymptomatic women here — I haven’t had one for many years. (And have already moved to three-yearly Paps for myself). I see no reason for it, any more than I see a need for pregnant women to have medical fingers stuck in them over and over again, as many obstetricians do. It’s useless as a screening test for ovarian cancer (which is how some doctors justify it). In addition, many women find it an overly invasive test, more so than relatively hands-off speculum examination, and a deterrent to regular Pap and STI screening.

So if I’m not getting a pap smear, not getting a bimanual exam, and can have my regular doctor do a breast exam and the rest of a routine physical, is there any reason I should be seeing a gynecologist every year?

As for seeing an ob/gyn yearly, I think it really depends. Many people, regardless of the new or old guidelines, seek their gynecological health care from family practitioners or even nurse practitioners or nurse midwives. Some choose to use an ob/gyn as a primary care physician, and do not seek care from any other practitioners, even for general conditions such as high blood pressure. It is definitely not unheard of here to see an ob/gyn for well visits, however.